Talk:Moral Imperatives of Government
I thought about adding that government does NOT have eminent domain powers such as many municipalities and States have given themselves. I was also going to point out the whole personal property is sacred thing, to the extent that subdevelopments put restrictions on property owners within them and should not have that power, but wanted to see other people's opinions to flesh it out --TheChin! 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ---- From the article: "Social Security With far too many people working long past retirement age, the average citizen cannot adequately provide for long term retirement for themselves. The federal government should continue to provide retirement benefits through Social security for those past the age of retirement. Due to unforseen life events, every citizen should have the opportunity to have a livable retirement benefit provided for them. Those whose income or personal wealth exceeds a certain value do not require, and should not receive, this benefit. " What the person is really saying is that s/he feels that it is the federal government's "moral imperative" to coerce each and every citizen to contribute a portion of his/her income so that those with "unforseen life events" can be comfortable after they retire? I cannot disagree more. It would be a far better use of government funds to properly educate individuals about appropriate retirement planning than it is to simply write them checks every month. And penalizing those who have achieved a level of success without any "unforseen life events" by making them pay in, but not receive anything out, is antithesis to a capitalist, competitive country. So unless this person is recommending that the United States convert to socialism, the notion is preposterous. --anonymous As a young, healthy 26 year old college graduate, the future looks bright. You get a great paying career, you set up an IRA or 401K and you are set for life. Then you get in a car wreck (odds are everyone will be in 2 automobile accidents during their lifetime. 1 in 2 auto accidents is drunk-driving related) and can no longer work. Your solution is sit in your home until it is reposed, then die alone in the street? Yes, it is unfair that some should have to take care of others. It is unfair that good people die every day. Life is unfair. But as a great country, it is our moral imperitive to take care of our own who cannot (not will not, but cannot) take care of themselves. --Midian 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC) --- While few would argue that we should not help those who are in need, many feel that the federal government is too removed and too obscured to be an effective outlet for distributing that assistance. The federal government demands accountability from its citizens, but its citizens cannot do the same. Assistance ought to be localized so that those who contribute can see real effects from their contributions and those who receive contribution know that it was due to those in their community that it was possible. That way, if a person is dying in the streets, the community that watched this person become that way and did nothing about it can be held accountable. Moral imperative in education Which amorphus "government" gets to determine what a "quality" education is? Federal? State? Local? Is a "quality" education one in which students learn how to be citizens, or is it one in which they learn to be good workers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education